If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You never admit the Republicans are wrong, even when THEY admit it, so why should I?

Rush Limbaugh has even admitted that he won't get his wish for Mr. Obama to fail, but you have not. Shows a lot.

Rush also said that the only reason Obama won't face impeachment is because anyone who tried would immediately face charges of racism from a biased media and no politician will risk that regardless of their actual motivation.

Rush also said that the only reason Obama won't face impeachment is because anyone who tried would immediately face charges of racism from a biased media and no politician will risk that regardless of their actual motivation.

True, it's one of a lot of stupid things he's said. I could give you a very long list of them if you wanted me to.

There's also Chris Matthews accusing Romney of using racist "code words" when he criticized Obama's handling of welfare reform, alongside Salon.com's Alex Sietz-Wald claiming that the welfare argument is all about race. Even during the 1996 election, the Washinton Post's Sig Gassler accused Republicans of using phrases like "violent crime," "welfare reform," and "illegal immigration" as racist code words.

Like Rush or hate him, but you can't deny that he's probably right. If people are going to accuse Republicans of being racists just for attacking Obama's policies such as ObamaCare, you can surely bet that they'll throw even stronger allegations at them if they try to impeach him.

Well it doesn't help that certain Republicans have shown extra hostility by calling Obama lazy, accuse him of palling around with terrorists, and the whole freaking Birther movement. But then again since day one, the GOP has been extra hard on the President and that is no secret. Remember what Colin Powell said about there is a dark vein of intolerance within the GOP?

Well it doesn't help that certain Republicans have shown extra hostility by calling Obama lazy, accuse him of palling around with terrorists, and the whole freaking Birther movement.

Well lets remember the Birther Movement was started by Hillary and the Democrats have had their own similar thing with George W Bush not being the legitimate President, something that even the current Vice President engages in.
He actually did "pal" around with terrorists, especially now that it is confirmed that he had deep friendships with Bill Ayres
And as for the lazy part, all those days of golf do add up. Not to mention how many times did Dems attack Bush for his time at his ranch?

Originally Posted by Silver Soul

But then again since day one, the GOP has been extra hard on the President and that is no secret. Remember what Colin Powell said about there is a dark vein of intolerance within the GOP?

That is kind of ironic considering how the left hurled many horrible racist slurs at him including calling him a "House N****" in the lead up to the Iraq war. Seems he has a short memory of how ugly the left can get when there is a Black Republican in a position of power.

Well lets remember the Birther Movement was started by Hillary and the Democrats have had their own similar thing with George W Bush not being the legitimate President, something that even the current Vice President engages in.
He actually did "pal" around with terrorists, especially now that it is confirmed that he had deep friendships with Bill Ayres
And as for the lazy part, all those days of golf do add up. Not to mention how many times did Dems attack Bush for his time at his ranch?

And even when the President showed his birth certificate, Trump still went after him anyway and the former GOP Presidential candidate didn't repudiate him for it so that was not helping their case. Also, did McCain palled around with the suspected Syrian Kidnappers recently in his trip? Also about the Ranch part, it is noted that Bush took more vacation days than any other modern President.

That is kind of ironic considering how the left hurled many horrible racist slurs at him including calling him a "House N****" in the lead up to the Iraq war. Seems he has a short memory of how ugly the left can get when there is a Black Republican in a position of power.

First off, you do realize that you do show hostility toward Powell when he voted for Obama twice and there might have been reasons that 93 percent of African Americans also did the same? And besides, what part of SOUTHERN STRATEGY do you not understand?

And even when the President showed his birth certificate, Trump still went after him anyway and the former GOP Presidential candidate didn't repudiate him for it so that was not helping their case. Also, did McCain palled around with the suspected Syrian Kidnappers recently in his trip? Also about the Ranch part, it is noted that Bush took more vacation days than any other modern President.

So they are supposed to repudiate everything some one says? If so there are some people that have been speakers at Obama Rallies that Obama really needs to talk about. Not to mention when will we hear Obama repudiate Biden for saying George W Bush was not elected President?
I would say McCain did
He did, and Democrats decried that, so why shouldn't Republicans get to decry Obama's constant golf outtings with out being labeled racists?

Originally Posted by Silver Soul

First off, you do realize that you do show hostility toward Powell when he voted for Obama twice and there might have been reasons that 93 percent of African Americans also did the same? And besides, what part of SOUTHERN STRATEGY do you not understand?

I have no problem if Powell wishes to vote for Obama, I do have a problem when Powell wishes to ignore the deep vain of racism inside the Democratic Party and left in general, racism that he experienced while in the Bush Administration ( Which I will remind you made him the first Black SoS ). If he honestly needs a refresher course, he should look at Condi Rice's twitter feed.

After what Trent Franks caused an uproar (like most things Republicans say about rape and pregnancy) House Republicans caved and quietly added provisions for rape and incest to his controversial bill in hopes of gaining Democrat support.

I still doubt the Senate will even consider voting on it, if it even passes the House right now.

Anyway, on another topic, I had an interesting conversation with another Republican supporter, who, like others, was accusing Holder of standing behind an "unconstitutional crime" by promising to arrest and punish Mr. Snowder, the "unconstitutional crime" being the whole NSA thing he leaked, which people claim violates the Fourth Amendment.

I pointed out to him that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to telephone metadata, something which was decided as far back as the 70's by the Supreme Court in three cases, including Smith v. Maryland.

While he did not deny it, this is what he said:

"That was decided" by a majority, not a consensus.

I stand with the dissenters, who like me, hold the Fourth Amendment in higher esteem.

My response?

For someone who seems to "respect" the Constitution so much, you seem to have NO respect at all for Article III. That's the part where it explains the Supreme Court's authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not. Like always, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Just like the guy I spoke to a few days a go, who in several posts argued that gun rights must be maintained, but in many others, called Casey Anthony a murder who deserved to be locked up for the rest of her life. In other words, he supported the Second Amendment but thought that the Sixth should be burned.

He never replied.

Edit: And by the way, JesusFreak, you left out the part about how Rush uses Godwin's Law (something that a certain someone here accused me of doing once, not naming names) and is proud of it. I mean, who coined the term "feminazis"?

Edit: And by the way, JesusFreak, you left out the part about how Rush uses Godwin's Law (something that a certain someone here accused me of doing once, not naming names) and is proud of it. I mean, who coined the term "feminazis"?

Of what relevance is that in a discussion about accusations of racism being leveled at critics of Obama and his policies?

I was adding another one. He's a misogynist. (Lest we forget his attempt to discredit Ms. Fluke too, which pretty much backfired completely, I might add.

So in other words, it was completely irrelevant, you blatantly ignored my point, and you are now trying to change the subject with random jabs at Rush Limbaugh.

Besides, if you want to go down the "Republicans are a bunch of dirty sexists" road, I can easily point you to Sarah Palin's treatment during the 2008 campaign, which even Hillary Clinton aides stated was downright sexist.

“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.”

Edit: And by the way, JesusFreak, you left out the part about how Rush uses Godwin's Law (something that a certain someone here accused me of doing once, not naming names) and is proud of it. I mean, who coined the term "feminazis"?

You... do realize Godwin's Law pertains to Online Discussions, not personal radio diatribes right?

Originally Posted by Silver Soul

Also, how could we forget about Red State's Erick Erickson's comments about female breadwinners being antithetical to nature?

Kind of sounds like those old protests from Obama fans that attacked the Hillary event telling her to get back into the kitchen doesn't it?

So your saying that the Right should lie to women, coddle them, tell them that the wage gap is driven by evil men, instead of telling them to accept reality and it is driven by the personal choices they make?

Might wanna recheck the Constitution, Religious Freedom does not mean that people or companies around you cannot engage in their own religious freedom as well, such as saying Merry Christmas.

[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...[/I]

There you go, first ten words.

Which is: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

Then for uses that are not online, it's not Godwin's Law, but something called The Association Fallacy, which is just as bad. (Also called "Hitler ate sugar" by some critics, especially when used in fiction.) Here, this will explain it:

This does not establish a religion as it uses two or more religious symbols and a secular one.

Originally Posted by Maedar

Then for uses that are not online, it's not Godwin's Law, but something called The Association Fallacy, which is just as bad. (Also called "Hitler ate sugar" by some critics, especially when used in fiction.) Here, this will explain it:

And? There are a few feminists out there with such a extreme view in terms of wiping out men that it matches the Nazi's movement of seeing a lower class and or being utterly genocidal. And mind you Rush has in the past said that he does not consider all feminists FemiNazis